Note: The output shown below is from the Communication 

Access Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the 

Communications Subcommittee Meeting #12 and is 

generally unedited. The CART system was used to provide 

an accommodation to persons with hearing loss and 

persons who are deaf, and was streamed in real-time and 

available to the public on the internet during the meeting. 

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

Communications Subcommittee Meeting #12

U.S. Access Board

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Staff Location: United States Access Board

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20004

Reporter: Sandra Gartrell
PAUL BEATTY: Okay. This is Paul Beatty. We 

will go ahead and start now.

Good afternoon. This is the 12th meeting of the 

Communications Subcommittee.

As you know, since anyone may participate in 

subcommittee, as no time of public comment has been 

scheduled during this two-hour call.

I don't believe the CART system chatbox is 

available. So for those only using the CART system to 

participate and desire to make a statement or raise a 

question, please use the RVAAC email address at 

RVAAC@access-board.gov. I will be monitoring that from 

my office and will communicate that to either the 

subcommittee chair or to Jim Pecht, if you say something 

on there.

If you don't need to use CART to participate, 

don't use it to send email information to that address.

When speaking, remember to give your name and also 

please keep your phones mute when you are not speaking.

Right now there is no additional subcommittee 

meeting scheduled and we made the introductions. So we 

will turn the call over to you, Terry, to get the ball 

rolling.
TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Thanks, Paul. 

Hello, everyone. I don't know how many people 

are on, but I assume we have a good number of members of 

the subcommittees on here now. I'm sorry?

PAUL BEATTY: I'm sorry, Terry. I was 

interrupting.

TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Has everyone had a chance 

to look at, first of all, the draft that went out on the 

17th of March? Has everyone had a chance to look at Frank 

Maldari's comments that came out the night before last? 

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I have not. I would

suggest if folks post stuff they just let us know. 

Because we are not all constantly checking, it would be 

nice to have an email come out that there is an update.

TERRY PACHECO: Yeah, that is one of my 

recommendations. I agree with you.

And then there was also an email version an hour 

ago, roughly, I'm going to say two hours, anyway, today 

from Lise Hamlin with some more recommendations in it. 

Has anyone had a chance to read that one yet?

FRANK MALDARI: The one that Lise Hamlin sent, is

that part of the meeting material because there is two 

markups on there? Is that part of the meeting materials? 

TERRY PACHECO: I'm not sure. Lise, are you 
here? I know Lise has a the flu.

JIM PECHT: All the materials is on the web.

LISE HAMLIN: I don't see it. Marsha was just 

saying it was there, but, Marsha, I don't see it.

MARSHA MAZZ: You may need to refresh your view. 

It is right on the main page with the committee materials. 

And it looks like it is also integrated into a document 

where it says "comments received," if you click on that. 

And it is under induction loops A, proposed new language, 

wherever audio announcements are provided. That is your 

new language, correct?

LISE HAMLIN: Correct.

MARSHA MAZZ: It's there. I'm looking at it 

online right now. Try refreshing your view.

JIM PECHT: If you find that document, if you 

scroll down further, you will find Frank's comments.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I guess my comment, I 

know there is a section on call buttons with audible and 

visual feedback. What is the button doing? Just calling 

someone? I am not sure what that is. 

TERRY PACHECO: When we looked at it, that is what 

our thinking was. This had come up through one of the 

other committees, the in-person committee meeting. This 

came up in rooms and spaces, I think it was. For instance, 
when you have a call button to call for the -- I keep saying 

the flight attendant -- crew staff member, that kind of 

thing.

Like when you are on a plane, there is the little 

button up overhead to call for the flight attendant. It 

is not doing anything, except getting someone to respond 

to you.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: That is great. Because 

that doesn't need a loop if you have a visual way to see 

it.

TERRY PACHECO: Exactly.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Okay. Just wanted to 

make sure.

FRANK MALDARI: Terry, are we going to discuss 

(inaudible)? 

TERRY PACHECO: I think that is a great idea. I 

honestly cannot read them well enough.

Maybe what we should do, you know, go through 

yours first and we can do those and then Lise's as well. 

Does that work for people? Hearing no disagreement, go 

for it, Frank.

FRANK MALDARI: I will do mine first. The 

comment is in relation to where audible announcements are 

made. They must also be provided visually. And my 
comment was to add to the extent practical. I think we 

recognize the fact that we don't have tests being done 

reliably. That statement as listed, that that is 

requirement will not be able to make any PA announcements 

that are not coming over the visual, the VMS system. 

So I think there are times when they are going to 

need to make announcements and they may not be capable of 

being transmitted on the VMS system and they should not 

be permitted. Not to say you should not have a VMS 

matching the PA system. But I think there are times it 

is not possible and it should be an exception to that. So 

that is why I wanted to add "to the extent practical."

TERRY PACHECO: My thought on that is if it is 

going to be audible, then it should also be at least, at 

least looped, be able to be -- if you go with the 

requirement with the induction loop, that be included at 

least on the loop.

FRANK MALDARI: The hearing loop will be 

automatic.

<<<: I just want to all -- we have to -- the 

question what is announced is ultimately determined by 

DOT, not by us as a board. You guys are -- provide visual 

and audio technologies.

LISE HAMLIN: I hear what you're saying but, I am 
wondering about the language. I wonder "if the extent 

practical" -- is this a term? I'm not sure it is a term

I have ever heard before. I heard technologically 

feasible, I have heard undue burden, but is it something 

we should just decide among ourselves or toss to the Access 

Board to make a determination about how to fit that into 

language that works under guidelines.

TERRY PACHECO: You make a very good point, Lise. 

Because if you go and look at the other guidelines in the 

past, the Access Board seems to have things that have their 

own language and the Department of Justice seems to have 

some things that is their own language and maybe that is 

exactly where we should be putting it, on the Access Board.

We are just advising the -- we are giving them the 

idea. We are not having to write the guidelines here. So 

maybe we should be getting the point across.

MARSHA MAZZ: Terry, I think that Frank's point 

is that he doesn't want this requirement to be 

100 percent. He wants some wiggle room here.

What do you say "to the extent practicable" or 

practicable or feasible? We will probably change the 

words, so it doesn't really matter.

As long as we understand your intent, that there 

be -- and you should probably outline what you mean by 
this. For example, is the practicability going to be 

based on what is technically possible or is it going to 

be based on what doesn't cost too much? I mean, these are 

the factors that, you know, you want us to embrace when 

we let somebody off the hook for the requirement.

So I think there should be something about the 

intent behind that so that we capture it properly when and 

if the board goes forward with the requirement.

FRANK MALDARI: Yeah. I tried to do that, 

Marsha, with what I wrote up when I was trying to give an 

example. We have the VMS system on our cars and all the 

canned announcements are repeated visually that are 

repeated audibly.

But we also have the PA system. And for instances 

that are not covered by a canned announcement and we make 

unscheduled PA announcements, we don't have anything that 

is a speech-to-text conversion. So those do not get 

displayed on the VMS side. I know we experienced issues 

with CART and it is not 100 percent. You don't want a 

technology that is not available. No one is trying to do 

this.

I know you are trying to limit it to the 

circumstances where you really can't have the two being 

the same, the VMS, the speech. That is my point. When 
it is an unplanned announcement, then you don't have 

speech-to-text capability. That is the point in which 

you should not have them being the same. Otherwise you 

are saying "you can't provide an audio announcement unless 

there is a visual string that follows it and because there 

is not an existing technology that does it reliably, I 

don't think you should require it."

MARSHA MAZZ: There is not a speech-to-text 

requirement here in your proposal, anyway. It simply 

says it has to be produced visually when it is produced 

audibly.

FRANK MALDARI: So if I make a PA announcement 

does it have to be reproduced audibly? I think when I read 

that, I think it says that.

MARSHA MAZZ: I read it as saying it has to be 

produced visually whether you do it using speech to text 

or you do it typing something into a keyboard in a train, 

is not addressed here.

FRANK MALDARI: Right. I'm saying that is not 

practical to have a crew member --

TERRY PACHECO: This is something we have gone 

over several times in these meetings. What it again boils 

down to, Marsha, and it has come up, I think, with you in 

some of the calls in the past is that it may not be 
technically doable today, but it very well may be in three 

or five years or something like that because of technology 

changes so quickly.

FRANK MALDARI: Right, but if you put --

TERRY PACHECO: By the time these rules are 

promulgated, it very well may be something that could be 

done. And that is where this whole -- that is the whole 

catch 22 in all of this.

FRANK MALDARI: And yeah, and that is why my 

suggestion was to put "to the extent practicable." I 

don't have a problem with the Access Board trying to figure 

out exactly what the right wording is, but the idea is to 

have some flexibility, should the capability not be 

present. That is all.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Frank, see, that is not 

going to work because the MTA will say it is not 

practicable and will determine. For example, loops are 

practical and possible on buses; we know it because it has 

been done on our buses. And now the MTA chairman has says 

it is not practicable. It is his opinion. The onus is 

on the person with the disabilities to sue the Department 

of Transportation and find out where the right place is.

FRANK MALDARI: I think you are taking it out of 

context. You are taking it out of context and I'm tired 
of you complaining what the chairman said to you 

privately. You are really taking up time. It's not the 

cause you are making. I don't think it is fair you keep 

doing it.

MARSHA MAZZ: This is Marsha --

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Can I finish my sentence? 

I don't know why Frank is the person that gets to talk over 

people. We don't have this on any call or any meeting.

MARSHA MAZZ: Everybody take a deep breath, 

everybody.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Frank, what is said to me 

is same publicly because I'm an advocate and not paid. 

And I was not a consultant with an MBA. What I want to 

say is my opinion and what I heard. And you know what, 

I'm tired for having to fight battles because people 

determine it is not practicable and then it falls on the 

people with the disability.

There is no stop gap to determine what the term 

"possible" means.

MARSHA MAZZ: Janice, if I can interject. 

Frank, if it is your intent to say where it would 

be necessary to type the message in onboard, you regard 

that as not being practicable, then I think your 

recommendation should say that.
In other words, if that is your intent, you know, 

it is practicable up unto the point where somebody has to 

be live typing it in as they speak or right after they 

speak, if that is your intent, then it would be good to 

have it clearly stated.

DAVID NELSON: I have been trying to make a 

comment. I wanted to mention that not only do we use 

canned message, but we can use ad hoc messages where the 

crew can have a lot of ad hoc messages where they have parts 

of it filled in and they can basically fill in the keywords 

that need to be filled in.

So really if we use ad hoc, then I think there is 

a higher chance -- I'm sorry, little to no chance that 

there will be an announcement over the PA system by the 

actual crew themselves, if they use the ad hoc messages. 

And keep mindful that this technology can be 

operated by an operating system remotely. So I think that 

we need to keep it open as much as possible with all the 

different options that are already available currently.

And also can you please make sure you're 

announcing your name before you speak.

TERRY PACHECO: Thank you, David. I'm sorry we 

have not been doing it.

LISE HAMLIN: I think David's suggestion may work 
because I don't see anywhere where we put verbatim -- I 

mean, we could at some point say "verbatim where possible" 

or "technically feasible."

And I'm hearing what you are saying, Frank. It 

sounds to me to say "technically feasible" to put in. I 

also like what Marsha said; what you don't want is to have 

crew there typing things in. Maybe that is what we should 

put in. Make it real clear what you mean because I think 

it is true that "practicable" can mean one thing to one 

person and a different thing to a different person.

FRANK MALDARI: I have no problem clarifying it 

in that regard. I will write something up and send it into 

you and you can look at it.

JIM PECHT: If you look at how this document is 

structured, number one, "general" is just that. It is 

general. It is setting up the principle that if it is 

visual it should be audible; if it is audible it should 

be visual. That is the general principle.

If you then look down at variable message sign, 

A and B, I think that answers your concern. Because the 

first one says if you have a prerecorded or canned audio 

message it has to be on the VMS. And the second one says 

if it is real time or dynamic, you do it to the extent 

practicable.
FRANK MALDARI: I see your point. It's the 

question how you put the two together. That is a good 

point.

JIM PECHT: Can we just put in a note there to see, 

cross reference them? 

FRANK MALDARI: I think when I'm reading this, 

I'm not sure I'm reading rule text or general information 

that is going to turn into a rule. And I kind of lean on 

the fact this is exactly what the rule is going to say.

I take the interpretation that the rule says this 

and you have to do this. I know there is a clarifying 

requirement and I also believe it is not going to look 

exactly like this in its final context anyhow.

If that is the intent of B and the wording will 

be addressed as such, I think it is fair enough the way 

you are saying it.

JIM PECHT: I don't think this is rule text. I 

don't want it to be rule text. I think what we want from 

you is not rule text. What we want from you is what you 

want in the rule, the idea, that is, what you are trying 

to get across to us. How you put it in the rules is up 

to you guys. 

JACKSON XUE: I also understand Frank's concern 

regarding the language that is currently posted. In a lot 
of cases where we see the word "shall" -- and maybe it is 

just a question of semantic. Where we see the word 

"shall," it is typically thou should do this. If we want 

to clarify it, maybe we should change it to "should be 

provided typically." When we say "the rule shall," that 

is typically something we have to abide to.

FRANK MALDARI: I'm okay putting this as a 

reference in there. As further clarified before. 

Because you're right, you do have it in there, but the two 

apart might be requiring different things. So that being 

said, I think the intent is to allow some flexibility and 

that is what you are doing.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My only concern is I 

don't want the person with the disability being placed in 

a position of having to prove that it is possible in that 

the train company is not complying with something that 

they are because the onus is very high burden for a person 

with a disability.

So I'm not sure -- we can't require obviously any 

technology that is not possible. But I'm tired of being 

placed in a position of something being possible and the 

place not complying with it and falls on people like me 

to get the place to comply because we have seen it is not 

possible. It sounds wonderful in theory that of course 
they are going to comply and they don't.

So I just want to use the correct language that 

doesn't force people like me to have to do this forever.

FRANK MALDARI: I can understand your concern 

about that. There are some things that are obvious. It 

is obvious now that you can have a VMS system with canned

messages that displays exactly what is being audibly 

provided. You can't argue that point. The flexible area 

is -- as stated here, in dynamic and audible messages.

It is not saying people can't do it. There are 

things already industry standard and can be done. I think 

the obvious ones are the ones you want to make sure you 

are getting.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: The problem is, Frank, 

what is obvious is only obvious once it is implemented by 

someone. And the problem is not all of -- not everyone 

travels and sees what is obvious in other countries.

So the problem we have that it is obvious, for 

example, to me what is possible and what can be done but 

it is not obvious to other people. So when we have the 

gap between obvious, that is where the problem lies.

I don't know how to do that without me always 

having to force things to get done. We need to remove that 

or literally I get hit by a train. This whole thing falls 
apart because I'm tired of being the one who is the point 

on the sword.

TERRY PACHECO: Do we have anything else, any 

other new comments? This is Terry. Any other new 

comments on this issue or shall we move on to the next one? 

Not hearing anything, Frank, would you continue 

on with your recommendations, please.

FRANK MALDARI: The second one is the visual 

announcements match. This may be a question of exactly 

verbatim or not.

Let me give an example. I will tell you a 

statement where visual announcement is made via variable 

message, or other means they should be provided audibly. 

That is the requirement. Let me say that is not a good 

idea. On our cars we typically display the end 

destination on the outside of the car consistently and at 

the station there is more information. When you come to 

a station, people can see if that is their train and they 

can prepare to get on it. But the speakers on the outside 

of the train is not saying "this is the train to 

Ronkonkoma" and over and over, but the outside signs do 

and I think that is helpful to people. If you take this 

requirement as it's stated, you won't be able to do that.

That is the example of something I was trying to 
say -- I don't know if that is the intent of what this says 

but I think that is what it does say.

TERRY PACHECO: If I can jump in on this since 

this is one of my pet issues. Again, this is Terry.

I think we run into this same issue in a couple 

of different places in here. And perhaps the solution is 

that it should come on when the VMS comes on and maybe we 

should be putting in a time frame that if it is on -- that 

it should repeat every minute or every 45 seconds, 

something like that. Maybe we should be coming with 

something along those lines, because it is going to vary. 

If you just got a sign on the outside of your train 

that says Ronkonkoma, that is not a VMS; it is a lighted 

sign. There is a difference between those two things. 

The point is when that train is coming into the station, 

as that train is arriving already in the station, that is 

when it should be announcing it so someone who is on the 

platform who cannot read it as it is going by actually 

knows that is the train they want to get and not the one 

to Timbuktu that uses the same platform. I think that is 

what we need to be very careful to deal with because there 

are so many places where multiple places are using a shared 

track. 

JACKSON XUE: I could probably give an example of 
where this may potentially be a concern. Typically when 

you look at high speed trains internationally, when you 

first enter a train they will have variable message signs

that are saying, for example, restrooms are located in car 

such and such.

Then when the car starts operating you see 

variable message signs every few seconds, signs that say 

current speed 100-miles an hour, current speed, 150-miles 

an hour. Okay to announce it once in a while. I guess 

where it comes to a certain -- you know, when you are 

having those signs vary every few seconds, it is a concern, 

especially when you have a PA announcement announcing it 

every few seconds.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My concern is on the 

subway, not long-term rails. Regularly we see trains 

switching from local to express. The announcements are 

saying it but the sign is still showing the original 

destination and the original number on the train.

So if you can't hear, you have no idea that the 

train just went express or local and you are suddenly in 

another destination. And there are times I can't hear the 

announcement; I'm on the wrong train. It is on a local 

track and it suddenly goes express or visa versa. I don't 

think we can be 100 percent dependent on just 
announcements.

TERRY PACHECO: I think we can come up with half 

dozen reasons why situations it needs to be -- this needs 

to be in place.

Again, I do think we could look at how often it 

needs to be reiterated.

FRANK MALDARI: I think your idea of tying it to 

the door operation is a good one, at least for the exterior 

sign.

Typically at the stations when the door operates 

it keys to VMS sign to change. And if it is just saying 

Ronkonkoma and stops at a lot of stations and that would 

be announced and -- at least tying it to the door 

operation, at least for the exterior sign is a good idea.

The other problem is along the lines of what 

Jackson was saying. Typically on our trains he will make 

the announcement of saying "this is the train to 

Ronkonkoma and stops at the next few stations and identify 

them. After that the audio announcements stops and up on 

the interior it will say where the train is headed to and 

it will stay stationary again until you get to the next 

station. 

It's the kind of information as that when the 

information is changing, then the audio announcement 
should be matching the sign. But when it is static it 

shouldn't. Does that make sense?

TERRY PACHECO: When it is static it -- it 

shouldn't continuously. I think that is the important 

word there. It shouldn't continuously.

You know, I'm trying to think of an example 

associating it with WMATA. If the sign was going to come 

on, I'm going to say, in Silver Spring and I'm not getting 

on until I get to Union Station but that sign is still 

there, I should still know that it is there. So maybe it 

should repeat at each station stop, something like that; 

or, you know, 15 seconds before each station stop, it 

should repeat so that people getting on in between would 

know that it is on there.

Does that make sense?

FRANK MALDARI: I think it does. I think now we 

are fine tuning the rule. The concept is it doesn't 

continuously repeat. I would agree with that. If we can 

define a way of how often it needs to repeat, that is the 

task at hand, if everyone else agrees. I think that is 

a good idea.

TERRY PACHECO: Anyone else have anything to say? 

JIM PECHT: It seems like if you are on a train 

and you want to go someplace, the first time you ought to 
make the announcement when you get on the train: "This 

is the train to blank. Next stop blank." You probably 

want at least somewhere in the middle of the trip, "This 

is the train to blah-blah. Next stop blah-blah." And 

the next time you want it at a minimum when you are -- just 

before you are pulling into a station.

TERRY PACHECO: Right.

JIM PECHT: "The station we are pulling into is 

so and so. This is the station is so and so." At a 

minimum that is what you want.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: That may be accurate for 

long trips, but on New York City subways the train 

repeatedly are chugging along and all of a sudden becomes 

express or local trains for apparently no reason and that 

happens on a regular basis these days.

So that type of requirement may work for a long 

haul train where it is a more predictable schedule, but 

for New York City subways -- and I repeatedly find myself 

turning to people on the subway, "is this local or express" 

and it just randomly changes.

But we need to create rules that take that into 

account because New York City subway situation may differ 

from other trains across the country, and I have no idea. 

CHRISTOPHER HART: We have that condition in 
Boston on a regular basis. It is not uncommon for our 

green line trains to go to rush hour. So it happens a lot. 

It is not just heavy rail; it is light rail as well.

Again, going back, it is thinking about a 

criteria. And I will also note that one criteria you may 

want to figure out is where you draw -- sharing the same 

platform, announcing it once may not actually be adequate. 

So it is food for thought there as well.

TERRY PACHECO: Announcing it once is about all 

you are going to be able to do on that train. I think what 

you're saying makes perfect sense for announcing it in the 

station, like the MVTA is doing so much now, largely on 

the red line, announcing it more than once within the 

station but we don't have the purview on that.

But once the train has arrived into the station, 

by the time you are getting people on and off, especially 

in automated systems or higher, faster speed trains like 

the WMATA, for instance, you don't have time to make a 

second announcement and listen to a second announcement 

and get on that train. That is the one difference I think 

there.

But I think basically you make a very good point, 

largely when you get shared platforms. But I think that 

is a station's issue and not the train's issue. 
CHRISTOPHER HART: And I think it may be reason 

to think about this. Like in Boston we will automatically 

have different lines sharing the same platform, so --

TERRY PACHECO: Yeah, yeah. 

CHRISTOPHER HART: -- your poor conductor is 

repeating himself every 10 minutes. As he gets in the 

station and people still don't get the message that this 

is a Providence change, not another train. So the 

conductor basically ends up repeating until they get 

everyone onboard. And inevitably there are a couple of 

people that are still lost.

TERRY PACHECO: That is a good point. I was 

thinking more like 10 more where you have four different 

green lines going through. Like the commuter rail, you 

do perhaps need more routes like a commuter rail, 

something like that.

FRANK MALDARI: I think a minimum requirement is 

like what Jim was offering before. Let me try to expand 

on it.

When you get on the train after the doors have 

opened you should get an announcement, like you said, 

where you are going and what the stops are. And then again 

right before you get to the next station you make an 

announcement this is the station coming up. We typically 
do that now.

The only thing I think could be trouble is the 

intermediate one. Because depending on how close the 

stations are, you can't always have enough time to do the 

intermediate announcement. Although the sign can be 

stationary and continue to scroll, you don't always have 

time to repeat it in between the stations.

So if you make it a minimum, which I think is a 

reasonable thing to do, I would think you would say when 

you get on and right before you get off. Right now for 

us we use GPS and we have geo fences to identify when you 

are getting close to the stations and that is what triggers 

the announcement, and that and knowing when the train is 

scheduled to stop.

As far as unplanned changes to the train, 

generally speaking, I ride the train every day. We 

typically only add station stops at the Long Island and 

don't skip station stops. So -- and I understand you want 

to know that, but it is surprisingly a difficult thing to 

do, unless you have speech to text, because which stations 

you are adding is not known unless the emergency occurs. 

If it is a Ronkonkoma train, typically does not stop at 

Maryland Avenue and all of a sudden today it is stopping 

at Maryland Avenue because the train at Maryland Avenue 
got stuck and it is picking up those passengers. Not as 

easy as you think to create a VMS announcement to say that, 

especially if you are on your way to Maryland Avenue and 

you open the door in two minutes or less. So it is not 

an easy thing to do with text but it is relatively easy 

thing to do audibly.

I know you mentioned this before. You are going 

to get whatever -- whatever audible announcement, you are 

going to get a hearing loop information. Hopefully some 

of those people will be able to get quick information.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: On -- this happens in the 

subways regularly. So, I mean, daily basis -- multiple 

times a week basis. Somehow there is a verbal message 

strip on the subway that changes the time and various 

things. And it is even on the subway platform, there is 

something that changes when the next train is coming and 

it is updated. So if we can update that, we should be able 

to update this and there is too many people who cannot use 

an induction loop, for example, me. And I can't hear the 

announcement because the clarity is really poor. There 

is music on the train, there is people talking, it is hard 

to hear. And it doesn't help people who are deaf who have 

no benefit in an induction loop.

So we need to figure out how the MTA can change 
the time when the next train is coming and not change the 

message.

And I think this is a completely solvable problem 

and we can't just say there is an induction loop and leave 

out the community who is deaf or people who don't wear 

hearing aids because they are in denial of their hearing 

loss and Mayor Bloomberg fits in that category.

JIM PECHT: Frank, you had concern about the 

intermediate announcement because the trip might be too 

short. What sort of duration would you consider an 

intermediate one appropriate for after so many minutes or 

whatever?

FRANK MALDARI: That is a good question. I 

guess --

JIM PECHT: Also talking about Amtrak with the 

long trips.

FRANK MALDARI: That is a good point, Jim. For 

long distance between stations the intermediate one 

wouldn't be a problem. For short distance, I guess we can 

come up with a number, maybe five minutes or something like 

that, is what you could say. If the next station is within 

five minutes of the next announcement, you wouldn't have 

to make an intermediate one. I think something like that 

can be used, some kind of time duration.
TERRY PACHECO: Maybe we should look at it 

instead of a time thing, a mileage or percentage.

MARSHA MAZZ: Terry, I don't understand the 

purpose of an intermediate announcement. There is 

nothing you can do. You are on the train, you are going 

to go to the next stop.

It seems to me that it is probably more vital that 

you have that information when you are on a shorter hop 

like our Metro system or the MTA where it is downtown, 

where the stations are fairly close together. If you 

happen to hop on the wrong train, you can get off and you 

can correct yourself.

But if I'm halfway to Philadelphia, I'm not going 

to be able to do anything about it if I happen to be on 

the wrong train, I mean, until I get to Philadelphia, I 

mean, you know.

Given that we are looking for a lot of information 

to be audible and given that, you know, you want to know 

when the restaurant car opens and you want to know all this 

other information, potentially if you are on a high speed 

train how fast it is going and all this other stuff, I'm 

not sure that an intermediate announcement is something 

you want to mandate. But certainly any entity could 

choose to provide it if they think it is warranted.
TERRY PACHECO: Yeah, we go with it as a minimum. 

We certainly can add that on. I tend to agree with you, 

Marsha. I don't see a purpose for the middle one largely 

to be applied as a minimum.

FRANK MALDARI: I agree with you 100 percent, 

Marsha. It is a very good point. I think once you are 

on there, you are stuck. So no point in knowing you are 

stuck there until it is too late anyway.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I disagree, because, 

first off, you can get off the train and catch another 

train back to where you are, where you started and not have 

to go all the way to, you know, the end --

TERRY PACHECO: But you are not going all the way 

to the end. We are talking about going from Station A to 

Station B, in the middle making another announcement that 

you are going to stop at Station B. You already know you 

are going to stop at Station B and it is going to announce 

when you get to Station B.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: It is not so much you are 

stopping at Station B, but when it changes the amount of 

stations.

TERRY PACHECO: That is a different issue.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I don't want someone 

editing the information I have or don't have or making any 
decisions for me. If it was important for anyone to have 

an audible announcement, I want to have the visual 

announcement.

TERRY PACHECO: We agree with that.

MARSHA MAZZ: Janice, if the information 

changes, that is a different deal. It is when you have 

already been given the information. You are on the train 

and you are going to get the information again as the train 

pulls into the next station. The question is whether it 

should be reiterated somewhere between Point A and Point 

B. And I, frankly, think that may be a bit of overkill.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: But don't you think it is 

telling someone to get ready, we are approaching the 

station? I don't understand what you're saying.

TERRY PACHECO: We are saying there will be one 

upon approach.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right.

TERRY PACHECO: There will be one when you are 

approaching the station. We -- let's say you -- you are 

getting on at Point A.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right.

TERRY PACHECO: And Point B is five minutes away; 

okay?

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right.
TERRY PACHECO: When you get on at Point A, it is 

going to tell you are on the train, the next stop is going 

be Point B station.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right.

TERRY PACHECO: In two more minutes do you need 

it to say then that the next stop is going to be Point B 

station, because in four and a half minutes before it pulls 

in it is going to say the next stop is Point B station? 

So do you need it to say it three different times instead 

of two? 

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: No. I didn't understand 

what you meant. No. Then you don't. No, you don't. I 

just want whatever announcement is being made, it'll be 

audible and visual.

TERRY PACHECO: Right. And I think we are all on 

that page.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Fine. Then I 

misunderstood and sorry.

TERRY PACHECO: I think the other issue that you 

have been raising we are also in agreement with. We have 

not really touched on it completely here yet and that it 

is when there is a change, that that needs to be audible 

and visual, when there is actual a destination change, 

something like that, that needs to be made available as 
well.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Yeah, because I can't 

tell you how many times I end up in another station and 

I'm like, when does this train switch. Thank you.

TERRY PACHECO: Like it was pointed out -- I 

think I said -- I forget who, doesn't matter. That all 

of a sudden it becomes an expression, we are going to skip 

the next four stations. Those kinds of things. What I'm 

calling changes and those we know need to be -- also need 

to be audible and visual. So I think we are all covered 

on the same thing, is what I'm saying.

Anybody else have anything for the melting pot? 

Then let's move along.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. The next question I had 

was about the designation of a high definition VMS. I 

didn't understand what the significance of that was.

TERRY PACHECO: As I recall, that was something 

that Andrew put in his comments. If in the future an HD 

VMS is being used, these are the other features that could 

be used, these are additional features that could be added 

in the case of HD VMS.

FRANK MALDARI: We already have the requirement 

that you have the VMS and you have it audibly as well.

TERRY PACHECO: Right. But if you look at the HD 
VMS could have the capability of doing ASL on it, for 

instance, or video description. If you are doing more of 

a VMS that can run videos at the same time, that kind of 

thing. Something that Blair had brought up about 

different points of interest they may have on a display 

on a long term distance Amtrak train, local points of 

interest that might come up, that kind of thing.

At some point in time if you are able to do videos 

on it, the videos could also be accessible via, like I say, 

via video description or ASL, something like that.

FRANK MALDARI: Unless I'm reading it 

incorrectly, I think if you have a video message or some 

kind of a special VMS sign, I think it is already required 

to have the other two things incorporated as it is, high 

definition or not. Why would it matter?

JIM PECHT: It has a lot to do with 

recommendations in the ANSI standard. The ANSI standard 

as far as VMS signage is concerned differentiates between 

high resolution and low resolution. There is actually a 

definition that clarifies what it is. High resolution 

you are talking about plasma television. ANSI says if you 

are high resolution, you basically have to meet the print 

sign requirement.

Low resolution is the kind of VMS sign that you 
find in the stations at the Metro in D.C. That is a low 

resolution. You can't do the kind of things you want to 

do of showing a picture of someone doing sign language on 

a low resolution VMS sign.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. So the clarity would be 

added to this somewhere in the document?

JIM PECHT: Frank, if you reference the ANSI 

standard, we pull in all of it, plus the definition.

FRANK MALDARI: That is fine. I was not aware of 

it and I think I understand what the intent is now.

LISE HAMLIN: Just a point for clarification. 

Right now it says where high definition is provided, audio 

description and ASL should be incorporated. That it is 

not sign language; that is assistive listening system.

So if Andrew meant ASL and videos, that is 

different than listening system. So we have to clarify 

that.

JIM PECHT: I thought he put in ASL and --

DAVID NELSON: I kind of question that because I 

don't see the ASL should be in that section because it is 

already defined in the next section under "inductive 

loop." And inductive loop is part of the audio portion. 

So I think it should be ASL.

JIM PECHT: That was probably an editorial goof 
on my part. I think the intent was American Sign 

Language.

FRANK MALDARI: So the audio description meant 

text-based audio description, right?

JIM PECHT: Audio description is a text-based 

audio description, yes. That is describing what the 

video is showing. Also described to audio description 

and video description is the same.

FRANK MALDARI: I think we have it covered. Just 

a little typo you have to fix, Jim, and that is it.

JIM PECHT: Okay. That change stays in with the 

typo change.

FRANK MALDARI: The next question I have is what 

do we do with the route maps. And it wasn't real clear 

to me about the audio version of a route map.

We discussed before about making an announcement 

audibly/visibly when the train doors close and when you 

are getting to a station. A static or variable sign on 

the car, how much content do you want out of it? 

DAVID NELSON: I was actually questioning that as 

well. We have one that runs between Portland and Seattle 

where it is almost like a GPS map configuration where our 

train route is displayed and we have a dot that basically 

moves and the dot is the train. And so it will show the 
name of a river here on the right side, the name of a town 

on the right side we pass. I don't actually imagine how 

we do audio descriptions of that because that would be 

constantly running the full -- I don't know if that would 

drive everybody crazy in the train car listening to that.

But, on the other hand, I want to make sure it is 

available for anybody who wants to know what the audio 

descriptions are.

So I would need guidance for how I would avoid 

situations where it is constantly running with audio 

description.

LISE HAMLIN: David, is that like -- I'm trying 

to imagine how it is. Is it like a kiosk or monitor at 

one end of the train? How does it look?

DAVID NELSON: So it's actually at the end on a 

wall, end of the train car on the wall. And it looks like 

a computer monitor, basically, with the map display. And 

there is a thick line of basically the track route and then 

the dot that displays -- it is a display for the train. 

And it is GPS tracking. So it moves along the map as, you 

know, we move and it will show on the right side there are 

mountains and on the left side a river or a cove or 

something we are passing by and then you can see maybe 

Seattle at the very top so you know you are halfway between 
Portland and Seattle.

FRANK MALDARI: Sounds like a GPS system. I have 

seen it on planes. I know Amtrak does it through their 

website. I agree with David, I don't know how you would 

provide an audio complement to that type of information. 

CHRISTOPHER HART: One thing I believe a Japanese 

car to be looking at is for high speed times when they have 

monitors in the seat belt and they have headphone jacks 

tied in with monitors. Then you could like you do at home, 

you could activate a particular area to get those 

descriptions. But that would only be in one car high 

speed environment where you have the seat belt video 

screens. 

JACKSON XUE: I also agree with Frank and David 

with this potentially -- as far as the audible 

announcements pertaining to the content of that map is 

concerned. I mean, it is used across the world in their 

high speed trains. For some trains these are TV monitors, 

if you will, that sometimes are hanging from the roof and 

passengers can access and see the content collectively. 

It is in addition to the variable signage that is typically 

at the end of the cars.

But David is correct. As far as the route maps 

it is a GPS tracking that shows where you are in the 
station.

It is more for, I don't want to say entertainment 

service, for lack of a better term, but to provide some 

visual information to the passengers on where they are on 

the line.

DAVID NELSON: So I think that maybe it was Chris 

who made the point of having the ability to maybe plug in 

and that would be for the seat back sign or even -- if it 

is monitored you can see from that is mounted to the top 

of the train car, you can see from your seat. Then if we 

have capability we should be able to plug in with earbuds 

or headphone devices that they can have the option to 

select and listen to the audio discussions of that map as 

they watch it. 

CHRISTOPHER HART: I was reminded right now I can 

go to Best Buy and I can buy a real Bluetooth seeker and 

I can control that on my cellphone 50 feet away. What is 

possible today, only via headphone jacks, may actually be 

completely wireless tomorrow.

DAVID NELSON: That is another thing. One way or 

another I think we have options and thank you for reminding 

me that technology is changing in the future. 

JACKSON XUE: I am okay and I agree that we should 

accommodate change in technology, especially if we can 
accommodate a headphone jack or Bluetooth, we should do 

that. My concern is without clarification whether or not 

this would need to be provided via the PA system, for 

example. In that case it my become an issue for the 

passengers.

JIM PECHT: I just want to remind you, folks, we 

are past the halfway point of this meeting so we need to 

sort of move along a bit.

TERRY PACHECO: This is not what I understood. 

And also in Andrew's comments, I thought what he was 

talking about was a route map, for instance, on a subway 

that shows all the stations from one end to the other, of 

the red line runs from this station to Ashmont or whatever 

and list all the stations in between because you are saying 

they should light up as they go through.

That is what I -- it also needs to be audible. 

That if we are going to take that -- if that sign is 

included, then it needs to be audible and visual.

This other feature that David has brought up, I 

think two separate issues, both absolutely having value, 

but I'm not sure what we can do on either one of them at 

this point. 

JACKSON XUE: With the subway cars, I understand 

the variable message signs at the end of the cars, they 
will typically show the next stop and the destination. 

With that we also have the tie-in for the audio 

announcements that go along with that. Is it absolutely 

necessary then that something that is for display, as far 

as that route map tracking as far as station stops are 

concerned, would it be required that be audible or a need 

for that to be audible? 

TERRY PACHECO: That is one of those pieces of 

information for someone who is -- especially someone who 

is not largely familiar with the city. I'm thinking 

largely in a subway situation to know that this train goes 

to Stations A through J and it is going in that direction, 

A through J and not J through A, that kind of thing. That 

is information that is very readily available to any 

nondisabled person that is on that train.

FRANK MALDARI: Trying to catch up with all this 

stuff. I think with the subway you do have some problems 

that a typical train stops at a lot of stations and it is 

hard to get every station that that subway train is going 

to stop at annunciated before you get to the next station 

because they are so close. So that becomes a problem. 

You could do it visually, but to do it audibly, I think 

is really kind of difficult, especially in the time frame, 

you are talking about from one station to another, that 
could be a few minutes, so.

TERRY PACHECO: I agree with you. I'm thinking 

more along the lines of a headphone type arrangement, of 

a plug-in type thing. The sign is just there showing all 

the red line or all the purple line or whatever. The sign 

is there showing all of the stations that this 

train -- that this line runs through and that information 

is on the train. Might there be a way of doing like a 

plug-in headphone, some way of making that information 

available? It is available to anyone that can see it. It 

is not available to anyone who can't see it. That is the 

point.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I just don't like 

anything that requires someone to carry a device with them 

because you are not always for subways, you may not know 

that you are going to be going on a subway and may not have 

your device. I think any way there is some requirements 

that you can't require people to have things.

TERRY PACHECO: That is basically true, but it is 

not practicable, that is the problem with that. For 

instance, if you are a blind person and you want to use 

an ATM you damn well should have an earphone with you.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My only concern is in a 

subway, you don't know in New York City you will be on a 
subway. So you never know so you may not have it.

TERRY PACHECO: It is real world as opposed to an 

ideal situation. If you don't have your thing with you, 

you may not need to use a sign. That kind of thing. If 

you don't have hearing aid with you, you can't use the 

loop.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right, doesn't require 

you to carry an additional device. You shouldn't place

people in a position to carry an additional device because 

they are carrying the hearing aid already, wearing them.

FRANK MALDARI: I understand what you are saying, 

Janice. I agree with Terry, I don't think it is 

practicable to be able to repeat all the same information 

audibly. Having an opportunity or having the sign have 

an audio component that you could plug in or possibly use 

Bluetooth. I don't know how the Bluetooth would work. 

It is a possibility that the information can be 

transmitted via other means. But in practicality wise in 

reality to go ahead and have that -- a sign go on a 

continuous loop identifying 30 stations at every door 

opening is impracticable.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: The problem is you can't 

require someone -- if someone doesn't have it, does that 

mean they don't have equal access? And that is a problem. 
It is a problem to require someone to always have a device 

with them to always have equal access to something so I 

disagree and that is not the law. So you can't rewrite 

the ADA. 

MARSHA MAZZ: It is not exactly the law because 

the accessibility standards now require anyone who want 

to use an ATM without vision to carry earphones.

Being as it is, I notice you have 10 more comments 

to do and you have three. So I'm going to urge you to move 

on. Doesn't sound like you are going to resolve this.

TERRY PACHECO: That has brought up a new issue 

we have not talked about today.

I think you are right. We have to move on. We 

may not be able to address it.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: State that there is a 

disagreement. 

TERRY PACHECO: We can put in there that there is 

a disagreement. Yeah, we can do that.

FRANK MALDARI: I can skim over the next ones if 

we are short on time and spend as much time talking about 

them. I don't want to make it so Lise doesn't have a 

chance to make her comments.

TERRY PACHECO: If you can do that, that is great.

FRANK MALDARI: The next item has to do with 
lighting and I was referencing an APTA standard that does 

exist if we were considering requirements, certain amount 

of lumens and lighting in the car.

TERRY PACHECO: And we also -- I think we already 

referred -- I think we agreed to refer that to the Access 

Board because of something else Marsha is working on.

JIM PECHT: Frank, you said you would send me a 

link and if you send me a link we will stick it in.

FRANK MALDARI: You got it.

The next item was the fire alarms. I thought we 

discussed the fire alarms. They were only warranted for 

certain type of vehicles. Wasn't really clear how that 

was going to be applied. Is that the case? 

JIM PECHT: It will be a "where provided" kind of 

thing, where you provide fire alarms, whatever.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay.

The next comment has to do with a door locked out. 

Currently when a door is locked out on our equipment, the 

light will blink indicating the door is locked out. I 

don't think you want to have a voice message repeating 

constantly as the train is in motion all day long that the 

door is locked out. I think that is what this implies. 

So I don't know if there is a way around it but that will 

be annoying to everyone on the train if that door is 
constantly announcing it is out of service all day long.

TERRY PACHECO: I thought what we had said it 

would announce with the station stop. Like, for 

instance, the one we are talking about kind of tied to the 

door or just before you pull into the station that "the 

next station is XYZ, the doors will be opening." Either 

the front doors will be opening or Door 3 won't be opening, 

something -- there would be some clarification at some 

point. That's the way I understood a discussion of this 

before.

Someone else have a different recollection?

FRANK MALDARI: The problem I have if you are 

counting on the audio message because you can't see the 

light, how do you know what door it is pertaining to? I 

mean typically in a vestibule there is one door on each 

side of the vestibule. So kind of makes it complicated 

if there is an announcement saying "this door is not 

working;" how do you know which one it is? Something to 

think about. I don't want to spend too much time on it. 

But I wrote it in here and hopefully we will have more time 

to talk about it.

JIM PECHT: Frank, would adding only to the 

notification during the station stop would help?

FRANK MALDARI: Doesn't address the issue, how do 
you know what door it is.

<<<: They change at the next station. 

Sometimes the door on the left and sometimes the door on 

the right.

FRANK MALDARI: My biggest problem, for me the 

visual alarm is easy to do because it gives you the 

location and the door that it is at the same time telling 

you it's out of service. If it is just audio, how do you 

identify which door it is and that is the problem with the 

alarm. You have to know which door it is as well as it 

is out of service. I just thought it's an area that was 

not lending itself to have both means of communication. 

It is something to think about.

TERRY PACHECO: It really varies, depending on 

the type of vehicle too. If you have four doors on one 

side of the train, that is a good point. Door number 3 

is not going to open as opposed to if you have a door on 

each end. Whether it is left and right, that is not too 

much issue because it should be saying "the next stop doors 

open on the left" or what have you. Then you are just 

saying in this car it is only opening -- the text of how 

to do that would not be that difficult in something that 

is just using like end doors. It is when you get into the 

subway type situation when you put three or four doors on 
each side that you run into the issue and it would need 

to be some text clarification for that. You make a good 

point.

Do you have any other -- is that the end of your 

comments? 

FRANK MALDARI: I will try to summarize a couple 

more comments and Jim may be able to explain it in more 

detail whether it is addressed or not.

The concern I have is what we showed that one day, 

two meetings ago when I showed the big emergency sign that 

covered the whole window. That still is a concern I'm 

trying to address here, that there are instances when you 

simply do not have enough space to make a sign be 

accessible. So you don't have the sign or it is covering 

the entire area and I didn't really see an allowance. You 

have something in here that says you can have handouts or 

other sorts of things to communicate that information. 

But I wasn't -- it didn't seem like it made it into the 

main context area.

Jim, I don't know if you can answer the comment. 

The comment is I'm concerned that the requirements as 

listed require you to have a giant sign anywhere you have 

a sign. And in certain instances, emergency window pull 

down handles are generally small. To put all the required 
information on that handle is really impracticable. To 

put the instructions on the window that meet all the 

requirements is really impracticable too. So I was 

hoping there would be something around that.

You do mention something in here you can have some 

alternate means of communications. Could that be 

expanded?

JIM PECHT: The alternate means of communication 

is more an issue of DOT because that is an operational 

issue that really doesn't effect how you build a rail car. 

The brochure behind the pocket, the apps, the Smart 

Phones, the website, those are all sort of out of our 

purview and also would be good things to sort of recommend 

as far as augmenting a lot of this stuff.

I'm trying to sort of get to the actual physical 

sign that is in the car. I don't know how you deal with 

this issue and it's up to the committee to sort of figure 

out how they want to tackle it.

MARSHA MAZZ: Even DOJ has to use the guidelines 

to formulate the standards -- I'm sorry, DOT. There is 

nothing prohibiting DOT from saying in their regulation 

you don't have to comply with XYZ requirements in the 

standards if you do something else and specify what that 

something else is. It is just not up to us to say you have 
to have an app for that. There wouldn't be anything 

stopping DOT from saying if you have an app or if you have 

seat back message that is in braille and large print then 

you don't have to make certain signs accessible. They 

could certainly do that.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. I don't know how you 

handle that in a standard, other than what you wrote, as 

long as DOT gets the information that they should put some 

allowance for alternate means of communication.

All right. Assuming you would be able to address 

that, the other comment I had real quickly here is the 

equivalency of the audio and visual messages. We touched 

on this a couple of times. I think we are starting to 

address it based on our conversation today. I think more 

clarity about the basic information could be the same but 

it might be slightly different. I don't know how to put 

that in words but that is kind of what I was -- it is an 

additional known recommendation that you have and I'm kind 

of agreeing with it and explaining it that there are 

circumstances where you don't have to match exactly. A 

couple have been touched upon with the destination sign 

and the repeatability of it. So I think we have addressed 

some of them. More food for thought as far as additional 

notes.
So I think I'm done with my comments.

LISE HAMLIN: Let me just add that we put in the 

word "equivalency". We didn't again put the word 

"verbatim". The idea is if they get the meat of the 

message, get their message across, the precanned message 

doesn't give you the -- gives you the information you 

need. It is equivalent or should be equivalent. That is 

the concept we are reaching for, not necessarily verbatim, 

except for where verbatim can be provided.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. Thank you. I think that 

is a good clarification. I think I'm done with my 

section, Terry, if you want to move on to the next.

TERRY PACHECO: Thank you, Frank, and thank all 

of you coming up with all your comments and all the work 

you have done with this in general. That extends to 

everybody on the committee. This is our 14th call or 

something. You all have done yeoman's work on this.

Lise, can you go over your comments with us now. 

LISE HAMLIN: My comments are actually pretty 

brief. There is not that much. What I was trying to do 

at the last meeting -- I forget who brought it up. But 

somebody said that we shouldn't be looking at specific 

technology when we make recommendations. So the loop 

technology is a real specific technology that may be in 
the future supplanted by something else and we don't know 

what it would be.

So what I was doing here is trying to take a stab 

at what loop technology does, hearing induction loop does 

for somebody with a hearing loss. You think of it as an 

example but not saying that is the only thing you have to 

use. So what I wrote was wherever audible announcements 

are provided, hearing assistive technology that has the 

capability of coupling directly, that is, by that I mean, 

without an additional receiver, so it is coupling directly 

to the hearing aids and cochlear implants or other 

personal hearing devices. Again, this is where -- I just 

want to say -- reading it out loud doesn't sound as good 

as when I wrote it. Anybody who wants to play with this 

language, feel free.

But what we are trying to do is say an example of 

the kind of technology we can use is hearing induction loop 

or future technology that benefit people who are deaf or 

hard of hearing and those texts should be provided. There 

has got to be a best way to say it.

I was trying to get to the idea of let's look at 

another way not to say everything has to have a loop but 

it has to have a technology that connects directly with 

whatever personal hearing technology the person is 
wearing.

FRANK MALDARI: I don't have any problem. I 

think you tried to make it more of a performance standard 

than a specific item standard. The only problem I have 

is the way it is written is the last couple of words where 

you say "and future technologies". That is not something 

as me as a provider or as an authority can identify or say 

I meet it.

The requirement you stated above is you need to 

have this device and then you say "future technologies". 

Well, how do I meet compliance with future technologies 

from a regulatory perspective? 

TERRY PACHECO: You may not be able to today, but 

I might be able to three years from now.

FRANK MALDARI: I know. But I guess what I'm 

saying when you say "future technology" in a regulation, 

there is no way to know you are meeting it or not. I think 

everything you need is what you wrote above that, the type 

of device. I don't think there is any need to say "future 

technologies benefiting the person..." I think it is 

clear in what you wrote. I think it is fine, the wording 

you had. And that is what you want, you want one of those 

things.

MARSHA MAZZ: Lise, I had a question for you. 
Someone can use a loop with a headset, but the way I read 

your rewrite it is not clear to me that you would want some 

headsets provided for those people who don't have a T-coil 

or don't have hearing aids.

LISE HAMLIN: That is not what I intended.

MARSHA MAZZ: Just wanted to be sure and 

understand that your intent would still be to provide some 

receivers for those people who need them?

LISE HAMLIN: No. My understanding is we can't 

write regulations that say the real authority should 

provide headsets.

MARSHA MAZZ: Actually, you can. I mean, we do 

it in the built environment. There is nothing here saying 

that you can't because it is part of this system, it is 

part of the built-in system. Each, though it is portable, 

but it is part of that system and it is how we justify it 

in the built environment because the system for someone 

who doesn't have the ability to connect to a loop via their 

hearing aid is useless without a receiver.

LISE HAMLIN: In that case, then, I would be in 

favor of it because it would give more people access to 

it. So I have no problem with including that. But the 

concept should be if somebody already has -- essentially 

the hearing aid is a receiver and when they don't have to 
carry around an additional receiver. So I'm not asking 

for more receivers to be -- I want the person who has 

already got the hearing aid or hearing device that can 

connect directly to a listening system to be able to use 

that. If in addition it is okay for the rail company to 

also deliver headsets, I have no problem with that.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Marsha, I have a 

question. From a practicable point of view, I just don't 

see how you are going to distribute headsets at subways.

MARSHA MAZZ: Probably not.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I think at that point 

realistically, if a person doesn't have the T-coil 

capability, I think that is where the visual signs come 

in. I'm not sure on a braille perspective on a subway you 

can distribute a headset.

MARSHA MAZZ: I'm more concerned about scenic 

rail tours.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I'm talking about on very 

short term, not when you are doing the flat top trains 

across the Rockies or whatever. On subways, I don't see 

it as being realistic or feasible in distributing and 

collecting headsets. I think that is why the visual, the 

messages are so critical, can act as a stop gap. I'm not 

going to argue the rail side on this. 
LISE HAMLIN: Not only that, with loop receivers 

they are pretty much universal. So if I really wanted to 

hear it, I could buy my own loop receiver if I didn't want 

to buy a hearing aid.

MARSHA MAZZ: Fine with me if you don't intend to 

require receivers and you only intend to require this 

connection with your hearing aids. I just needed to 

understand your intent.

LISE HAMLIN: Okay. That was my intent. If the 

committee feels -- I think Janice is right. I think it 

is hard to then say on long distance trains they should 

provide receivers and on subways they get a waiver. Maybe 

you can say that, actually. 

CHRISTOPHER HART: What you need to bear in mind 

that there are two different entities providing 

oversight. And the FTA has oversight over the long 

distance scenic railways, whereas things like transit is 

STA. So it may actually be worth some thought as to 

providing this. Again, I do think in the case of Amtrak 

where they run movies in certain cars and whatnot, I may 

want to think about some suggestions on a route. I don't 

see any value in, quote, STA oversight transit agencies.

DAVID NELSON: I wanted to answer about Frank's 

concern regarding the part about future technologies. 
Now, what my intent or what my understanding of that would 

be so the last time that anything was written for this was 

back in 1991 and we might not revisit this again for the 

next 25 plus years. So if we kept future technologies in 

there, it would be able to keep it open ended so the DOT 

could do an issue of a statement providing what type of 

technologies would need to be available on the train 

fleets for us to use. Does that make sense?

FRANK MALDARI: The way I read this, the first 

part says you have to have some kind of hearing assistive 

technology device that communicates directly with an 

implant. Doesn't exactly say what the device is or how 

it should work. And in the future if they come up with 

some better way of doing it, that doesn't prohibit you from 

using the new technology. So I just don't see where you 

need to say "future technologies" at the end. You are not 

defining the product that is used to communicate to the 

implant. You are just saying it has to be a device that 

communicates directly with the implant without giving you 

any criteria of how that has to happen.

TERRY PACHECO: Don't we need the one at the end 

for people who -- additional technologies who may not have 

an implant?

FRANK MALDARI: How would I meet that requirement 
if I don't know what it is? Right now I know they have 

hearing loops and I think I could meet this requirement.

TERRY PACHECO: What I'm saying, a hearing loop 

could be used by someone using hearing aids but who has 

not had a cochlear implant. It freely acknowledges my 

ignorance. I'm not sure why we are putting the cochlear 

implant in there. I'm sure there is some kind of very good 

reason for it. I'm just saying we want to cover both 

people who have and have not had cochlear implants.

LISE HAMLIN: Cochlear implants have T-coils in 

them as well and can receive signals from a loop. The 

reason I was trying to make it as broad as possible besides 

addressing the concern -- and I think you are right, 

Frank. What I'm saying, I'm addressing the concern about 

naming a particular technology, but what I'm hearing in 

the field is that Bluetooth could become wide area. That 

is one possibility. But they are also talking about all 

kinds of new technology that a hearing aid or cochlear 

implant or other implantable hearing technology, personal 

hearing technology could get a direct link to. That is 

another reason why I really wanted that broad. 

I think you are right, Frank. That addresses the 

question of something in the future because I'm not saying 

only loops. 
JACKSON XUE: When we say "all other personal 

devices", wouldn't that already cover? 

LISE HAMLIN: I was referring to hearing aids, 

cochlear implants. There is something called the BAHA, 

which is a bone implanted device. There has been in the 

past something called a SoundBite, which is literally a 

hearing aid in your teeth. There are other devices 

coming. There is a hearing aid that is now implantable. 

There are other devices. There is constant change in the 

market.

I wanted to make the distinction. Is it 

something somebody carries themselves, their personal 

device? Not like someone provides them like a receiver, 

where they let go when they are done.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I think we can cover that 

by saying "including but not limited to", which I think 

is standard language which allows for the involvement of 

technology and going forward.

FRANK MALDARI: I think that is fine. I think if 

you just end the sentence, you know, examples include 

hearing induction loops or other devices or exactly what 

Janice said is fine.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I think that is standard. 

I think based on the Passenger Vessel Committee, that was 
told to me by someone on the committee and I have seen that 

now. If you do "including but not limited to", it allows 

for expansion. And you put what the goal is like you did 

to achieve. So it measures what you need to achieve. 

I think somewhere among us we need to have ANSI 

standards and include standards within it. If we include 

the goal, then it doesn't really matter what the device 

is in wanting to achieve the goal and the goals won't 

change. The device may.

TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Are we all in agreement on 

that, the last few words and changing the punctuation? 

FRANK MALDARI: Yes.

TERRY PACHECO: Go for it, Lise.

LISE HAMLIN: The next one I was trying to make 

it sync with the number A. The hearing technology should 

be instead of "accessible", I said "available". I 

thought it was more clear. I thought "available".

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My only concern is we 

have not proven the whole train can be looped so I'm not 

comfortable until we come back with Caltran and Amtrak to 

be told we are self-limiting. 

TERRY PACHECO: That we are what? I'm sorry?

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Self-limiting. If the 

whole train can be looped, I don't want to create a hearing 
ghetto in telling people where they have to sit if that 

entire car can be looped and we don't know that until 

Amtrak and Caltran do their pilot. My understanding is 

the entire car can be looped because we have already done 

that on the buses. So I'm not sure why an entire train 

car can't. 

Now, I'm not an engineer. If we find out it 

can't, that is a different story. I don't want to limit 

it. Because if you go on a train and someone is sitting 

in a seat, it is difficult and not everybody wants to sit 

in special seating or where someone from the train 

designer decides you should be sitting. The loop area is 

in the back of the car and I like being in the middle and 

why should I be told where to sit if I don't have to. If 

they can accomplish it, that is a different story.

FRANK MALDARI: It says within two seating areas. 

So you always have the opportunity to put more. I don't 

think what California or Caltran is doing can tell you what 

you can do in every instance.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I don't think that two 

will end up being two. Be realistic. We have -- not even 

the MTA push forward and do more than required. If I saw 

that we wouldn't need to have this conversation. It is 

not like anyone anywhere in the country has said, "We are 
doing this because we think it is right."

When we start to see that, then we can have that 

conversation. But so far I have not seen it anywhere in 

the country by anyone. Since I'm the one battling 

everyone across the country, I'm the one having the 

conversations and I don't want to have the conversations 

anymore. I want life to be easy.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. I know you can't put it 

everywhere right now easily because it has not been done. 

So requiring something you know can't be done is not the 

right way to go either. So it has to be a compromise and 

I think what is written there is a reasonable compromise. 

And you can complain you don't think people will do what 

they should. 

We have VMS system in our car and we have them in 

the 10 years and this rule is not even finalized yet. To 

say you people don't put things in there unless it is 

regulated is just wrong and to regulate something that 

doesn't exist is wrong. So you have to compromise and 

this is a reasonable compromise.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I disagree with you. 

And LAR holds out the bids, the loops from a bid even though 

an Australian rail company said they can put in a loop 

because LAR deemed it expensive when it was not expensive. 
So you can't tell people with disabilities what you deem 

as reasonable compromise. So I disagree and the same with 

the buses. 

I just forwarded to the rail committee the pilot 

of induction loop on buses. I have the report. There was 

an internal document and your city transit holds the 

induction loops claims it was not piloted. I have the 

report so you can't tell me what can and can't be done 

because the MTA and NYC transit is no longer an accurate 

reporter of what can be done.

You may not like what I'm saying, but you will see 

when it is forwarded. So I disagree. The facts are just 

uncomfortable for the MTA and New York City Transit.

ANDRE GAGNE: To let you know we are in the 

process of implementing the loop in BART cars but we are 

limited on the amount of coverage we can have in the 

vehicles because of propulsion. The cars have a 

propulsion system on them. This is not the case for the 

Caltran cars, which are local. So I think we have to keep 

that in mind when we write this text.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I have some really top 

people in the field who would be willing to work with you 

guys and let's bring them in and see what they can do 

because they have done some of the most complicated jobs 
in the country. And if you want to consult with them 

because they have done the biggest and hardest jobs in the 

country -- if anyone can accomplish it, it is them. We 

can't go by people's internal stamp. We have to look to 

people who have done complicated projects already.

ANDRE GAGNE: There is, I believe, if my memory 

is good, there is only two suppliers of such systems for 

rail cars. We are getting one right now. That is fine. 

They are the system suppliers. So we have to obviously 

make sure their system is integrated properly in the 

vehicles. Again, when the cars have propulsion systems 

there is magnetic interference that is generated by some 

of the equipment, which is the reason why we have to limit 

the induction loop system to certain areas of the car where 

the propulsion system does not interfere.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Andre, I can't speak to 

who you are working with. I have worked with two 

installers who have done the toughest jobs in the country 

in a subway information booth, the Proxy and Intrepid. 

Let's bring them in and have them take a look. I can't 

say until people look at the drawing. I just know if they 

say it can't be done, it can't be done and they have never 

been not able to accomplish the goal. So they are willing 

to work with you guys and let's have the conversation.
TERRY PACHECO: Thank you. We did have an 

opportunity to have someone that came on one of our early 

conversations from a committee about the induction loops 

and he was from the UK, as I recall. We --

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Julian.

TERRY PACHECO: Yes. I couldn't remember his 

name for the life of me. We have done this -- my head is 

going crazy at this point.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: But Julian --

TERRY PACHECO: Janice, let me finish. Janice 

and Andre and anyone else, if you folks can do something, 

I think this needs to be a side issue. We have no time 

left at this point to take on any additional projects under 

the RVAAC committee at this point, we don't have it. This 

is our last call. We just don't have the time to do any 

more on that.

If you folks want to come up with something so it 

could come in, perhaps during the comment period under 

NPRM sometime in the future, we just don't have -- we do 

not have the wherewithal to add anything more in about this 

before our report has to go to the committee itself. I 

think that would be really good for you to work together 

as an aside.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I am not comfortable 
supporting two areas, and we can put in the recommendation 

multiple opinions. It doesn't have to be a definitive. 

We have with the Passenger Vessel Recommendation 

Committee. These are recommendations and the law. And 

the industry may disagree with advocacy and that is where 

the Access Board comes in and sees what can be done.

MARSHA MAZZ: I would like to suggest, Janice, if 

you have wording -- because it doesn't sound to me that 

you are saying that wouldn't accept some expert saying 

that it is not possible in certain places. Sounds like 

you are saying you can get the maximum coverage you can 

get within the realm of possibility.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Of course, yeah. 

MARSHA MAZZ: If there is a way to express that, 

maybe can you do that to offer the change.

As Terry said, your subcommittee report is about 

done but you do get another bite at the apple through the 

full committee process.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I would do it the way you 

said it.

TERRY PACHECO: Then please do and send it to us 

and we will put it in.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Say it as from what 

Marsha just said. I don't have the ability or skill to 
write it.

MARSHA MAZZ: I wasn't writing it. Either I was 

giving the thought.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: It must be in the CART 

report.

MARSHA MAZZ: Again, the idea is there; not 

necessarily written in a way that you would like. If 

people accept the principle, then you can work on the 

wording.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I don't know how to do the 

wording but that is the principle. So whoever is capable 

of writing the wording, that is exactly the principle. 

That is exactly what I'm saying, what you said Marsha.

MARSHA MAZZ: Frank, would you accept that 

principle? 

FRANK MALDARI: To the extent practicable, yes, 

I would accept it to do it the best you can. I could 

suggest wording if you like. I have no problem doing it. 

TERRY PACHECO: Fine. Can you email it to us 

when you get a chance?

FRANK MALDARI: Yes, I will do that.

TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Lise.

LISE HAMLIN: I'm sorry, I put myself on mute 

here, coughing away. Didn't think you needed to hear 
that.

I have one question at the end. Does not change 

the language. The C is the Access Board should evaluate 

the feasibility of induction loops on rail cars and it says 

the majority of the subcommittee already thinks it is 

feasible and the question do we need it if Caltran and BART 

is already doing it? Do we need the Access Board to look 

at it? Do we -- does the Access Board want us to put it 

in there?

TERRY PACHECO: I think we had put that in on very 

much the same topic we have been discussing now on just 

how much could be done, whether it could be the whole car 

or if it had not included the area with the propulsion, 

that kind of thing. We were tossing it to the Access Board 

to delve deeper than we have been able to in this 

committee.

Anyone else have anything?

LISE HAMLIN: I have no objection to it. I was 

just raising it as a question.

ANDRE GAGNE: I think there is not much value in 

that statement. I would remove, like it was mentioned, 

we are in the process of implementing.

TERRY PACHECO: Are you recommending that we 

remove the statement, then? Is that what you're saying, 
Andre?

ANDRE GAGNE: Yes, it is.

TERRY PACHECO: So that means that we are not 

recommending that the Access Board do any further research 

on it, as I understand it. Am I correct, everyone?

FRANK MALDARI: I think if there is anything to 

be done, it would be an understanding of how much coverage 

you can have. And I don't know if we need the Access Board 

to do that. I think that is going to come out of the 

projects as they begin implementation. I agree, I don't 

think there is any value in that comment. I don't think 

it needs to be stated.

JIM PECHT: We have a minute left and I think we 

are sort of done. We have to be done. So I think the next 

step is, as far as I'm concerned, Terry is going to take 

the stuff you talked about today, reconstitute this 

document. I'm going to help edit it a little bit.

TERRY PACHECO: A whole lot.

JIM PECHT: And we are going to send it back out 

to you guys. At that point I don't want you to send me 

more comments. What I want you to send me is, "yes, I can 

live with this," or "no, I cannot live with this." If 

there are things you are uncomfortable with but you can 

live with the whole document, say that. If it makes you 
physically ill and you can't live with it, we need more 

meetings tells us. If most of you folks are comfortable 

with sending it on. We will send it to the full committee.

TERRY PACHECO: One thing. If there is 

something you can't live with or you have to put in there, 

don't use track changes, don't incorporate in into the 

current one. Reference what you're referring to and just 

give us what you think it should be. An additional 

sentence, give us that sentence and tell us where you think 

it belongs in it. It is just much easier for reediting. 

Please. Thank you.

JIM PECHT: Before we go, is everyone comfortable 

with that path?

LISE HAMLIN: Yes.

<<<: Yes.

FRANK MALDARI: Yes.

JIM PECHT: It is 3:00. Thank you, very much, 

folks. Meeting adjourned. 

(Whereupon, at 3:00 pm, the meeting was adjourned)